Basic data underlying decision-making in clinical vascular surgery Section Editor- John M. Porter, MD (Portland, Oregon)
Basic Data Related to Infrainguinal Revascularization Procedures Ronald L. Dalman, MD, Lloyd M. Taylor, Jr, MD, Portland, Oregon
A review of current reports on the results of infrainguinal revascularization procedures emphasizes the critical importance of strict adherence to From the Department of Surgery, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon. Reprint requests: Lloyd M. Taylor, Jr, MD, Oregon Health Sciences University, Department of Surgery, OPll, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, Oregon 97201-3098.
the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Reporting Standards in Arterial Surgery of the Joint Vascular Societies [1]. Definitions of primary and secondary patency, level of distal anastomosis, what constitutes a "re-do" operation, etc., all must be clearly stated. The inclusion of life tables is critical. The tables which follow necessarily incorporate the uncertainty inherent in averaging results of
TABLE I.BAbove-knee femoropopliteal grafts Primary patency* Reverse saphenous vein Arm vein Human umbilical vein Potytetrafluoroethylene
1 mo 99 99 95
6 mos 91 90 89
1 year 84 82 82 79
2 years 82 65 82 74
3 years 73 60 70 66
4 years 69 60 70 60
References 7,10-12,17,19,20 18 12,43 7,11,12,17,20,21
*All patencies are expressed as percentages; all series published since 1981
TABLE II.--Below-knee femoropopliteal grafts 1 mo
6 mos
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
98 95
90 87
84 80
79 76
78 73
77 68
7-12,17,19,20 8,12,14-16
97 97 88 96
96 82 80
96 83 77 68
89 83 70 61
86 73 61 44
81 70 60 40
15,16 18 12,43 9,11,12,17,20,21
100 97
92 96
90 94
88 84
86 83
75
7,8,10 14,41,42
References
Patency* Primary Reverse saphenous vein In situ vein bypass Secondary In situ vein bypass Arm vein Human umbilical vein Polytetrafluoroethylene
Limb Salvage
Reverse saphenous vein In situ vein bypass
*All patencies expressed as percentages; all series published since 1981
309
ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY
I N F R A I N G U I N A L R E V A S C ULAR1ZA TION PROCEDURES
310
TABLE III.mlnfrapopliteal grafts 1 mo
6 mos
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
92 94
81 84
77 82
70 76
66 74
62 68
2-13 14-17
93 95 94 80 89
89 90
84 89 73 52 46
80 87 62 46 32
78 84 58 40
76 81 37 21
2,5,10,13 15,16 44 12,43 6,7,12,22
85 91 68
83 88 60
82 83 56
82 83 48
3-7,9,37 14,38 6,7,9
References
Patency* Primary Reverse saphenous vein In situ vein bypass Secondary Reverse saphenous vein In situ vein bypass Arm vein Human umbilical vein Polytetrafl uo roethylene
Limb Salvage
Reverse saphenous vein tn situ vein bypass Polytetrafluoroethylene
65 58
95 96
88 76
*All patencies expressed as percentage; all series published since 1981
TABLE IV.--At or below-ankle grafts Patency*
Primary Reverse saphenous vein Secondary Reverse saphenous vein In situ vein bypass Foot salvage
1 mo
6 mos
1 year
95
85
81
96 93 99
90 93 94
85 92 93
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
References
30 81 82 87
76 72 84
27 27,28 26-28
*All patencies expressed as percentages; all series published since 1981
TABLE V.--Miscellaneous Patency*
Grafts with proximal anastomosis at the common femoral artery Primary Secondary Grafts with proximal anastomosis distal to the common femoral artery Primary Secondary Reoperation All graftsl Primary autogenous vein Primary polytetrafluoroethytene All autogenous grafts in patients with diabetes mellitus All autogenous grafts in patients without diabetes mellitus Foot salvage after grafting in patients with diabetes mellitus Foot salvage after grafting in patients without diabetes mellitus
1 mo
6 mos
93 95
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
83 91
80 86
78 82
78 80
78 80
8,10,12 10,15
References
97 100
89 96
83 90
79 86
75 80
74
73
3,10,26,29 10,27
96
90 82
80 79
65 71
55 62
45 57
57
32 34
100
62
42
28
34
90
82
77
10,40
88
78
72
10,40
87
85
6,10
96
93
6,10
*All patencies expressed as percentages; all series published since 1981 tAll grafts = all grafts, all conduits, irrespective of number of operations required to maintain patency
VOLUME 4 No 3 - 1990
INFRAINGULNAL REVASCULAR1ZA TION PROCEDURES
311
TABLE V , - - M i s c e l l a n e o u s (Continued)
Patency*
1 mo
6 mos
1 year
2 years
3 years
Common femoral 86 78 73 70 endarterectomy and superficial femoral endarterectomy Common femoral 97 97 97 97 endarterectomy Survival with bypass for claudication Survival with bypass for limb 97 97 92 86 76 salvage *All patenciesexpressedas percentages;all seriespublishedsince t 981 tAll grafts = all grafts, att conduits,irrespectiveof numberof operationsrequiredto maintainpatency
multiple studies which, with rare exception, have not adhered meticulously to the recommended reporting standards. In them we describe expected patency, limb salvage rates, and survival for patients undergoing revascularization procedures, which have been determined by pooling information from the references cited with appropriate weighting for varying numbers and length of follow-up.
REFERENCES 1. Ad Hoc Committee on Reporting Standards, SVS/ISCVS. Suggested standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia. J Vasc Surg 1986;4:80-94. 2. BARRY R, SATIANI B, MOHAN B, et at. Prognostic indicators in femoropopliteal and distal bypass grafts. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1985;161:129-132. 3. CANTELMO NL, SNOW JR, MENZOIAN JO, et al. Successful vein bypass in patients with an ischemic limb and a palpable popliteal pulse. Arch Surg 1986;121:217-220. 4. SCHULER JJ, FLANIGAN DP, WILLIAMS LR, et al. Early experience with poptiteal to infrapopliteal bypass for limb salvage. Arch Surg 1983;118:472-476. 5. BERKOWlTZ HD, GREENSTEIN SM. Improved patency in reversed femoral infrapopliteal autogenous vein grafts by early detection and treatment of the failing graft. J Vasc Surg 1987;5:755-761. 6. DALSING MC, WHITE JV, YAO JST, et al. Infrapopliteal bypass for established gangrene of the forefoot or toes. J Vasc Surg 1985;2:669-677. 7. VEITH FJ, GUPTA SK, ASCER E, et al. Six-year prospective multicenter randomized comparison of autologous saphenous vein and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts in infrainguinal arterial reconstructions. J Vasc Surg 1986; 3:104-114. 8. Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group 141. Comparative evaluation of prosthetic, reversed, and in situ vein bypass grafts in distal popliteal and tibial-peroneal revascularization. Arch Surg 1988;123:434-438. 9. HOBSON RW, LYNCH TG, JAMIL Z, et al. Results of revascularization and amputation in severe lower extremity ischemia: a five-year clinical experience. J Vasc Surg 1985; 2:174-185. 10. TAYLOR LM, EDWARDS JM, PORTER JM, et al. Present status of reversed vein bypass: five year results of a modern series. J Vasc Surg 1989, in press. 11. BERGAN JJ, VEITH FJ, BERNHARD VM, et al, Random-
4 years
5 years
References 23,24
94
68
25 88
45
64
5,9,13,32,38
ization ofautogenous vein and polytetrafluoroethylene grafts in femoro-distal reconstruction. Surgery 1982;92:921-929. 12. RUTHERFORD RB, JONES DN, BERGENTZ SE, et al. Factors affecting the patency ofinfrainguinal bypass. J Vasc Surg 1988;8:236--246. 13. ROSENBLOOM MS, WALSH JJ, SCHULER JJ, et al. Long-term results of infragenicular bypasses with autogenous vein originating from the distal superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. J Vasc Surg 1988;7:691--696. 14. HARRIS RW, ANDROS G, DULAWA LB, et al. The transition to in situ vein bypass grafts. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;163:21-27. 15. LEATHER RP, SHAH DM, CHANG BB, et al. Resurrection of the in situ saphenous vein bypass. Ann Surg 1988; 208:435-442. 16. BANDYK DF, KAEBNICK HW, STEWART SW, et al. Durability of the in situ saphenous vein arterial bypass: a comparison of primary and secondary patency. J Vasc Surg 1987 ;5: 256-268. 17. KENT KC, WHITTEMORE AD, MANNICK JA. Shortterm and midterm results of an all-autogenous tissue policy for infrainguinal reconstruction. J Vasc Surg 1989;9:107114. 18. HARRIS RW, ANDROS G, SALLES-CUNHA SX. Alternative autogenous vein grafts to the inadequate saphenous vein. Surgeo' 1986;100:822-827. 19. BREWSTER DC, LASALLE A J, DARLING RC, et al. Comparison of above-knee and below-knee anastomosis in femoropopliteal bypass grafts. Arch Surg 1981;116:10131018. 20. HALL RG, COUPLAND GAE, LANE R, et al. Vein, gore-rex or a composite graft for femoropopliteat bypass. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1985;161:308-312. 21. QUIIqONES-BALDR1CH WJ, BUSUTTIL RW, BAKER JD, et al. Is the preferential use of polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for femoropopliteal bypass justified? J Vasc Surg 1988;8:219-222. 22. FLINN WR, ROHRER MJ, YAO JST, et al. Improved long-term patency of infragenicular polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. J Vasc Surg 1988:7:685-690. 23. INAHARA T, SCOTT CM. Endarterectomy for segmental occlusive disease of the superficial femoral artery. Arch Surg 1981 :I 16:1547-1553. 24. OURIEL K, SMITH CR, DEWEESE JA. Endarterectomy for localized lesions of the superficial femoral artery at the adductor canal. J Vasc Surg 1986;3:531-534. 25. MUKHERJEE D, INAHARA T. Endarterectomy as the procedure of choice for atherosclerotic occlusive lesions of the common femoral artery. Am J Surg 1989;157:498-500. 26. BUCHBINDER D, PASCH AR, ROLLINS DL, et al. Results of arterial reconstruction of the foot. Arch Surg 1986;121:673-677.
312
I N F R A I N G U I N A L R E V A S C U L A R I Z A T I O N PROCEDURES
27. ANDROS G, HARRIS RW, SALLES-CUNHA SX, et al. Bypass grafts to the ankle and foot. J Vasc Surg 1988; 7:785-794. 28. CORSONI JD, KARMODY AM, SHAH DM, et al. In situ vein bypasses to distal tibial and limited outflow tracts for limb salvage. Surgery 1984;96:756-763. 29. VEITH FJ, ASCER E, GUPTA SK, et al. Tibiotibial vein bypass grafts: a new operation for limb salvage. J Vasc Surg 1985;2:552-557. 30. ASCER E, VEITH FJ, GUPTA SK, et al. Bypasses to plantar arteries and other tibial branches: an extended approach to limb salvage. J Vasc Surg 1988;8:434 441. 31. DENNIS JW, LITTOOY FN, GREISLER HP, et al. Secondary vascular procedures with polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for lower extremity ischemia in a male veteran population. J Vasc Surg 1988;8:137-142. 32. BARTLETT ST, OLINDE A J, FLINN WR, et al. The reoperative potential of infrainguinal bypass: long-term limb and patient survival. J Vasc Surg 1987;5:170-179. 33. VEITH FJ, ASCER E, GUPTA SK, et al. Management of the occluded and failing PTFE graft. Acta Chir Scand 1987;538:117-124. 34. EDWARDS JM, TAYLOR LM, PORTER JM. Treatment of failed lower extremity bypass grafts with new autogenous vein bypass. J Vasc Surg 1989, in press. 35. WATELET J, CHEYSSON E, POLLS D, et al. In situ vs. reversed saphenous vein for femoropopliteal bypass: a prospective randomized study of 100 cases. Ann Vasc Surg 1986;1:441--452. 36. HARRIS PL, HOW TV, JONES DR. Prospectively randomized clinical trial to compare in-situ and reversed saphenous
nun
37.
38.
39. 40. 41. 42. 43.
44.
45.
ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY
vein grafts for femoropopliteal bypass. Br J Surg 1987; 74:252-255. TAYLOR LM, EDWARDS JM, BRANT B, et al. Autogenous reversed vein bypass for lower extremity ischemia in patients with absent or inadequate greater saphenous vein. A m J Surg 1987;153:505-510. LEATHER RP, SHAH DM, KARMODY AM. Infrapopliteal arterial bypass for limb salvage: increased patency and utilization of the saphenous vein used " I n Situ". Surgery 1981 ;90:1000-1008. HURLEY JJ, AUER AI, HERSHEY FB, et al. Distal arterial reconstruction: patency and limb salvage in diabetics. J Vasc Surg 1987;5:796-802. SHAH DM, CHANG BB, FITZGERALD KM, et at. Durability of the tibial artery bypass in diabetic patients. Am J Surg 1988;156:133-135. BUCHBINDER D, ROLLINS DL, VERTA MJ, et al. Early experience with in-situ saphenous vein bypass for distal arterial reconstruction surgery. Surgery 1986;99:350-357. BUSH HL, NASBETH DC, CURL GR, et al. In-situ vein bypass grafts for limb salvage. A m J Surg 1985;149:477-480. DARDIK H, MILLER N, DARKIK A, et al. A decade of experience with the glutaraldehyde tanned human umbilical cord vein graft for revascularization of the lower limb. J Vasc Surg 1987;7:336-346. ANDROS G, HARRIS RW, SALLES-CUNHA SX, et al. Arm veins for arterial revascularization of the leg: arteriographic and clinical observations. J Vasc Surg 1986;4: 416-427. KENT KC, DONALDSON MC, ATTINGER CE, et al. Femoropopliteal reconstruction for claudication. Arch Surg 1988;123:1196-t 198.
Basic Data Related to Infrainguinal Revascularization Procedures Ronald L. Dalman, MD, Lloyd M. Taylor, Jr, MD, Portland, Oregon
A review of current reports on the results of infrainguinal revascularization procedures emphasizes the critical importance of strict adherence to From the Department of Surgery, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon. Reprint requests: Lloyd M. Taylor, Jr, MD, Oregon Health Sciences University, Department of Surgery, OPll, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, Oregon 97201-3098.
the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Reporting Standards in Arterial Surgery of the Joint Vascular Societies [1]. Definitions of primary and secondary patency, level of distal anastomosis, what constitutes a "re-do" operation, etc., all must be clearly stated. The inclusion of life tables is critical. The tables which follow necessarily incorporate the uncertainty inherent in averaging results of
TABLE I.BAbove-knee femoropopliteal grafts Primary patency* Reverse saphenous vein Arm vein Human umbilical vein Potytetrafluoroethylene
1 mo 99 99 95
6 mos 91 90 89
1 year 84 82 82 79
2 years 82 65 82 74
3 years 73 60 70 66
4 years 69 60 70 60
References 7,10-12,17,19,20 18 12,43 7,11,12,17,20,21
*All patencies are expressed as percentages; all series published since 1981
TABLE II.--Below-knee femoropopliteal grafts 1 mo
6 mos
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
98 95
90 87
84 80
79 76
78 73
77 68
7-12,17,19,20 8,12,14-16
97 97 88 96
96 82 80
96 83 77 68
89 83 70 61
86 73 61 44
81 70 60 40
15,16 18 12,43 9,11,12,17,20,21
100 97
92 96
90 94
88 84
86 83
75
7,8,10 14,41,42
References
Patency* Primary Reverse saphenous vein In situ vein bypass Secondary In situ vein bypass Arm vein Human umbilical vein Polytetrafluoroethylene
Limb Salvage
Reverse saphenous vein In situ vein bypass
*All patencies expressed as percentages; all series published since 1981
309
ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY
I N F R A I N G U I N A L R E V A S C ULAR1ZA TION PROCEDURES
310
TABLE III.mlnfrapopliteal grafts 1 mo
6 mos
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
92 94
81 84
77 82
70 76
66 74
62 68
2-13 14-17
93 95 94 80 89
89 90
84 89 73 52 46
80 87 62 46 32
78 84 58 40
76 81 37 21
2,5,10,13 15,16 44 12,43 6,7,12,22
85 91 68
83 88 60
82 83 56
82 83 48
3-7,9,37 14,38 6,7,9
References
Patency* Primary Reverse saphenous vein In situ vein bypass Secondary Reverse saphenous vein In situ vein bypass Arm vein Human umbilical vein Polytetrafl uo roethylene
Limb Salvage
Reverse saphenous vein tn situ vein bypass Polytetrafluoroethylene
65 58
95 96
88 76
*All patencies expressed as percentage; all series published since 1981
TABLE IV.--At or below-ankle grafts Patency*
Primary Reverse saphenous vein Secondary Reverse saphenous vein In situ vein bypass Foot salvage
1 mo
6 mos
1 year
95
85
81
96 93 99
90 93 94
85 92 93
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
References
30 81 82 87
76 72 84
27 27,28 26-28
*All patencies expressed as percentages; all series published since 1981
TABLE V.--Miscellaneous Patency*
Grafts with proximal anastomosis at the common femoral artery Primary Secondary Grafts with proximal anastomosis distal to the common femoral artery Primary Secondary Reoperation All graftsl Primary autogenous vein Primary polytetrafluoroethytene All autogenous grafts in patients with diabetes mellitus All autogenous grafts in patients without diabetes mellitus Foot salvage after grafting in patients with diabetes mellitus Foot salvage after grafting in patients without diabetes mellitus
1 mo
6 mos
93 95
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
83 91
80 86
78 82
78 80
78 80
8,10,12 10,15
References
97 100
89 96
83 90
79 86
75 80
74
73
3,10,26,29 10,27
96
90 82
80 79
65 71
55 62
45 57
57
32 34
100
62
42
28
34
90
82
77
10,40
88
78
72
10,40
87
85
6,10
96
93
6,10
*All patencies expressed as percentages; all series published since 1981 tAll grafts = all grafts, all conduits, irrespective of number of operations required to maintain patency
VOLUME 4 No 3 - 1990
INFRAINGULNAL REVASCULAR1ZA TION PROCEDURES
311
TABLE V , - - M i s c e l l a n e o u s (Continued)
Patency*
1 mo
6 mos
1 year
2 years
3 years
Common femoral 86 78 73 70 endarterectomy and superficial femoral endarterectomy Common femoral 97 97 97 97 endarterectomy Survival with bypass for claudication Survival with bypass for limb 97 97 92 86 76 salvage *All patenciesexpressedas percentages;all seriespublishedsince t 981 tAll grafts = all grafts, att conduits,irrespectiveof numberof operationsrequiredto maintainpatency
multiple studies which, with rare exception, have not adhered meticulously to the recommended reporting standards. In them we describe expected patency, limb salvage rates, and survival for patients undergoing revascularization procedures, which have been determined by pooling information from the references cited with appropriate weighting for varying numbers and length of follow-up.
REFERENCES 1. Ad Hoc Committee on Reporting Standards, SVS/ISCVS. Suggested standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia. J Vasc Surg 1986;4:80-94. 2. BARRY R, SATIANI B, MOHAN B, et at. Prognostic indicators in femoropopliteal and distal bypass grafts. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1985;161:129-132. 3. CANTELMO NL, SNOW JR, MENZOIAN JO, et al. Successful vein bypass in patients with an ischemic limb and a palpable popliteal pulse. Arch Surg 1986;121:217-220. 4. SCHULER JJ, FLANIGAN DP, WILLIAMS LR, et al. Early experience with poptiteal to infrapopliteal bypass for limb salvage. Arch Surg 1983;118:472-476. 5. BERKOWlTZ HD, GREENSTEIN SM. Improved patency in reversed femoral infrapopliteal autogenous vein grafts by early detection and treatment of the failing graft. J Vasc Surg 1987;5:755-761. 6. DALSING MC, WHITE JV, YAO JST, et al. Infrapopliteal bypass for established gangrene of the forefoot or toes. J Vasc Surg 1985;2:669-677. 7. VEITH FJ, GUPTA SK, ASCER E, et al. Six-year prospective multicenter randomized comparison of autologous saphenous vein and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts in infrainguinal arterial reconstructions. J Vasc Surg 1986; 3:104-114. 8. Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group 141. Comparative evaluation of prosthetic, reversed, and in situ vein bypass grafts in distal popliteal and tibial-peroneal revascularization. Arch Surg 1988;123:434-438. 9. HOBSON RW, LYNCH TG, JAMIL Z, et al. Results of revascularization and amputation in severe lower extremity ischemia: a five-year clinical experience. J Vasc Surg 1985; 2:174-185. 10. TAYLOR LM, EDWARDS JM, PORTER JM, et al. Present status of reversed vein bypass: five year results of a modern series. J Vasc Surg 1989, in press. 11. BERGAN JJ, VEITH FJ, BERNHARD VM, et al, Random-
4 years
5 years
References 23,24
94
68
25 88
45
64
5,9,13,32,38
ization ofautogenous vein and polytetrafluoroethylene grafts in femoro-distal reconstruction. Surgery 1982;92:921-929. 12. RUTHERFORD RB, JONES DN, BERGENTZ SE, et al. Factors affecting the patency ofinfrainguinal bypass. J Vasc Surg 1988;8:236--246. 13. ROSENBLOOM MS, WALSH JJ, SCHULER JJ, et al. Long-term results of infragenicular bypasses with autogenous vein originating from the distal superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. J Vasc Surg 1988;7:691--696. 14. HARRIS RW, ANDROS G, DULAWA LB, et al. The transition to in situ vein bypass grafts. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;163:21-27. 15. LEATHER RP, SHAH DM, CHANG BB, et al. Resurrection of the in situ saphenous vein bypass. Ann Surg 1988; 208:435-442. 16. BANDYK DF, KAEBNICK HW, STEWART SW, et al. Durability of the in situ saphenous vein arterial bypass: a comparison of primary and secondary patency. J Vasc Surg 1987 ;5: 256-268. 17. KENT KC, WHITTEMORE AD, MANNICK JA. Shortterm and midterm results of an all-autogenous tissue policy for infrainguinal reconstruction. J Vasc Surg 1989;9:107114. 18. HARRIS RW, ANDROS G, SALLES-CUNHA SX. Alternative autogenous vein grafts to the inadequate saphenous vein. Surgeo' 1986;100:822-827. 19. BREWSTER DC, LASALLE A J, DARLING RC, et al. Comparison of above-knee and below-knee anastomosis in femoropopliteal bypass grafts. Arch Surg 1981;116:10131018. 20. HALL RG, COUPLAND GAE, LANE R, et al. Vein, gore-rex or a composite graft for femoropopliteat bypass. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1985;161:308-312. 21. QUIIqONES-BALDR1CH WJ, BUSUTTIL RW, BAKER JD, et al. Is the preferential use of polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for femoropopliteal bypass justified? J Vasc Surg 1988;8:219-222. 22. FLINN WR, ROHRER MJ, YAO JST, et al. Improved long-term patency of infragenicular polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. J Vasc Surg 1988:7:685-690. 23. INAHARA T, SCOTT CM. Endarterectomy for segmental occlusive disease of the superficial femoral artery. Arch Surg 1981 :I 16:1547-1553. 24. OURIEL K, SMITH CR, DEWEESE JA. Endarterectomy for localized lesions of the superficial femoral artery at the adductor canal. J Vasc Surg 1986;3:531-534. 25. MUKHERJEE D, INAHARA T. Endarterectomy as the procedure of choice for atherosclerotic occlusive lesions of the common femoral artery. Am J Surg 1989;157:498-500. 26. BUCHBINDER D, PASCH AR, ROLLINS DL, et al. Results of arterial reconstruction of the foot. Arch Surg 1986;121:673-677.
312
I N F R A I N G U I N A L R E V A S C U L A R I Z A T I O N PROCEDURES
27. ANDROS G, HARRIS RW, SALLES-CUNHA SX, et al. Bypass grafts to the ankle and foot. J Vasc Surg 1988; 7:785-794. 28. CORSONI JD, KARMODY AM, SHAH DM, et al. In situ vein bypasses to distal tibial and limited outflow tracts for limb salvage. Surgery 1984;96:756-763. 29. VEITH FJ, ASCER E, GUPTA SK, et al. Tibiotibial vein bypass grafts: a new operation for limb salvage. J Vasc Surg 1985;2:552-557. 30. ASCER E, VEITH FJ, GUPTA SK, et al. Bypasses to plantar arteries and other tibial branches: an extended approach to limb salvage. J Vasc Surg 1988;8:434 441. 31. DENNIS JW, LITTOOY FN, GREISLER HP, et al. Secondary vascular procedures with polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for lower extremity ischemia in a male veteran population. J Vasc Surg 1988;8:137-142. 32. BARTLETT ST, OLINDE A J, FLINN WR, et al. The reoperative potential of infrainguinal bypass: long-term limb and patient survival. J Vasc Surg 1987;5:170-179. 33. VEITH FJ, ASCER E, GUPTA SK, et al. Management of the occluded and failing PTFE graft. Acta Chir Scand 1987;538:117-124. 34. EDWARDS JM, TAYLOR LM, PORTER JM. Treatment of failed lower extremity bypass grafts with new autogenous vein bypass. J Vasc Surg 1989, in press. 35. WATELET J, CHEYSSON E, POLLS D, et al. In situ vs. reversed saphenous vein for femoropopliteal bypass: a prospective randomized study of 100 cases. Ann Vasc Surg 1986;1:441--452. 36. HARRIS PL, HOW TV, JONES DR. Prospectively randomized clinical trial to compare in-situ and reversed saphenous
nun
37.
38.
39. 40. 41. 42. 43.
44.
45.
ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY
vein grafts for femoropopliteal bypass. Br J Surg 1987; 74:252-255. TAYLOR LM, EDWARDS JM, BRANT B, et al. Autogenous reversed vein bypass for lower extremity ischemia in patients with absent or inadequate greater saphenous vein. A m J Surg 1987;153:505-510. LEATHER RP, SHAH DM, KARMODY AM. Infrapopliteal arterial bypass for limb salvage: increased patency and utilization of the saphenous vein used " I n Situ". Surgery 1981 ;90:1000-1008. HURLEY JJ, AUER AI, HERSHEY FB, et al. Distal arterial reconstruction: patency and limb salvage in diabetics. J Vasc Surg 1987;5:796-802. SHAH DM, CHANG BB, FITZGERALD KM, et at. Durability of the tibial artery bypass in diabetic patients. Am J Surg 1988;156:133-135. BUCHBINDER D, ROLLINS DL, VERTA MJ, et al. Early experience with in-situ saphenous vein bypass for distal arterial reconstruction surgery. Surgery 1986;99:350-357. BUSH HL, NASBETH DC, CURL GR, et al. In-situ vein bypass grafts for limb salvage. A m J Surg 1985;149:477-480. DARDIK H, MILLER N, DARKIK A, et al. A decade of experience with the glutaraldehyde tanned human umbilical cord vein graft for revascularization of the lower limb. J Vasc Surg 1987;7:336-346. ANDROS G, HARRIS RW, SALLES-CUNHA SX, et al. Arm veins for arterial revascularization of the leg: arteriographic and clinical observations. J Vasc Surg 1986;4: 416-427. KENT KC, DONALDSON MC, ATTINGER CE, et al. Femoropopliteal reconstruction for claudication. Arch Surg 1988;123:1196-t 198.
